Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to finish my comments.
As I was saying before question period, one of the concerns that has been brought forward to many members in the House has been the issue of the legitimate use of firearms. There is a concern that some of the provisions contained in Bill C-68 could be used to curtail what in essence is legitimate activity by legitimate firearms owners.
There are a number of activities undertaken that are historical in nature, that actually represent a way of life and a lifestyle we have come to know and enjoy in rural Canada, in my case in rural Ontario.
Hunting for sustenance has a long history. Hunting for sport has been done in my riding for generations and generations. It is important to the psyche where one generation passes its firearms and the whole tradition of hunting to the next generation.
Hunting is important in terms of economics as I mentioned when I spoke earlier. A large number of individuals travel to my riding and make use of the great facilities we have there. Of course trapping is important as an economic generator. Other recreational activities like target shooting are also important and for many people the collecting of firearms.
It is important we ensure the provisions contained in Bill C-68 do not curtail such activities. For the most part they are designed to do what I fully support and what I know other government members support: control violence in Canadian society. That is the legitimate objective of the legislation, one that I support.
If regulations are put forward that achieve public safety in their implementation and that help to reduce violence in society, most Canadians and legal firearm owners would be quite willing to support that. For the most part many of the regulations in this legislation do that. However some legitimate concerns have been expressed that need to be addressed and of which we need to be cognizant.
There is the issue of cost. Many people who participate in hunting are not wealthy individuals. They either hunt for sustenance or they hunt for sport. We have to be very careful not to create a regulatory regime or a costing structure that will some day make it impossible for these individuals to pursue hunting.
Although the government has done a good job in setting out a fee schedule that is modest, I have concerns that it stay that way and that firearm owners are not going to be faced with high costs down the road.
I have a concern which I know is shared by many of my rural colleagues and by many legal owners of firearms: that provisions in this legislation could be used at some point in the future. The government has stated unequivocally that it is not its intention to do that but there is concern that people can use the provisions in the legislation to at some time prohibit firearms that are normally used for recreational purposes.
This is a genuine concern. It is something that has been expressed by a lot of people. We need to put something in the legislation that makes it absolutely crystal clear that it is not the intent of Bill C-68 to restrict the legitimate use of firearms for legitimate purposes like hunting, target shooting and collecting. It is absolutely essential that we make sure that it is not done.
Although most individuals will accept the regulations contained in the bill that are designed to increase public safety, although most individuals will accept those provisions that will ensure they attempt to curtail violence, it is important that we place within the body of the bill a safeguard, a provision that explicitly states that nothing in the legislation is intended to curtail the legitimate use of firearms.
I will read the amendment:
That nothing in this act is to be interpreted as prohibiting a person who is licensed to own a firearm from using a firearm, other than a restricted or prohibited weapon, that has been registered by the person pursuant to this act, from
(a) using the firearm for recreational or sustenance hunting, target shooting, trapping or other lawful activity, or
(b) keeping the firearm in a collection of firearms.
It is absolutely essential that we make it clear that nothing in Bill C-68 is to be used to curtail the legitimate use of firearms. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.